Mock all you want, your only contribution to this was whinging about house prices in London. Kind of like weighing into a discussion on the price of vegetables with a complaint about working conditions for Apple workers in Bangalore.



The Union has plenty of reasons planned out for the action, none of which are sufficient to warrant it. The H&S issue isn't something the drivers are at all bothered about, their issue with the companies they work for is protecting their T&Cs, so being protected on pay, term of contract and pension. The H&S stuff just sounds good.

So you are falling back on a pedantic difference in words between 'salary' and 'earnings' over this, despite them claiming it's not about pay anyway?



The truth is they are highly paid as drivers go, earning £45k on average. They also work in an industry with an excellent H&S record. They don't want their cushy position to be compromised and feel it has been, but the issues they have are minor.

Yes forgive me for expecting the government to know what the words they are saying actually mean. The rest of your first paragraph makes no sense.



Yes they are highly paid as drivers go. That's because the job they do is more important and dangerous than most drivers jobs. The fact they get paid more than regular drivers is irrelevant, it's called a market rate. By "cushy" position I assume you mean the "excellent H&S record" which the management are trying to erode. Damn those greedy drivers for not wanting to die at work.

The ONS and that article clearly shows they aren't paid on average £45k. Only someone who doesn't understand the meaning of the word average could take that article as saying they are paid on average £45k.

The article quotes the Office for National Statistics. In a battle between them and the company who released their average earnings figures, I know who I would believe. In any case the figures quoted are purely for drivers of large goods vehicles and are not specific to this industry. So the article is taking an irrelevant statistic gathered no doubt on a voluntary form and extrapolated by the ONS then making an assumption about the top 10%. Given the numbers of drivers mentioned in the article, it wouldn't exclusively be fuel tanker drivers making up that top 10% so her deductions are flawed and based on flawed statistics.



Given the evidence in that article there is nothing to suggest that the fuel tanker drivers involved do not earn £45k a year on average.

The screen shot of the payslip clearly shows an overtime element of £783, accounting for around 25% of his salary. The salary extrapolated would show a gross annual of around £36,000, from a basic of around £27,600.



It's also worth pointing out that the hours a driver may work are rigidly controlled by EU law and in the main, are rigidly enforced by employers because a failure to do so can lead to massive fines and restrictions or even revocation of the operator's licence.



Given the basic salary and assuming a basic week of 40 hours it's going to be difficult to get to £45k and remain within the law.

Thats the first and obvious thought that I had too.



Doesn't seem to be quite so obvious to some though.





As one who works or is on standby for 12 days out of every 14, my salary is always quoted as the figure shown on my contract and not the figure on my P60 every year, its what I'm contracted to do and the overtime and standby payments are voluntary, additional and changeable and not therefore admitted to any organisation who makes a pretence at needing to know.